Re: power() function in Windows: "value out of range: underflow" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: power() function in Windows: "value out of range: underflow"
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYy5LHbWt8gfOgnHBvt_3NTs-2xbyD6unDpGYxkQKtzhw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: power() function in Windows: "value out of range: underflow"  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: power() function in Windows: "value out of range: underflow"  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 7:24 PM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I think we should back patch and try to be consistent about the
> power(float8 1.0, 'NaN') and power('NaN', float8 0.0) cases. The
> archives don't show any complaints about power() with NaN until this
> one, so I imagine the number of people affected by this is small.

I agree that this is not likely to affect a lot of people -- but the
question isn't how many people will be affected but rather, of those
that are, how many of them will be pleased rather than displeased by a
change.  I would argue that the results have to be unambiguously wrong
in the back-branches to justify a change there, and this doesn't
appear to meet that standard. I would guess that the number of people
who use NaN is very small, but those people have probably adapted
their application to the behavior they are getting currently.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Fsync request queue
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions